flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>
Subject Re: The 'less-RC' process explained
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:08:09 GMT

I couldn't have twisted what I actually wrote any further out of
context than you did, even if I tried really hard.

I refuse to be drawn into a 'blow-by-blow' rebuttal of your
misunderstandings. I urge you to spend the time you intend to spend
talking yet another well-intentioned effort to death on fixing bugs
and adding features instead.

Is the article perfect? No. Does it need to be? Certainly not,
according to every PMC member and contributor that read it - all but
you, predictably, unfortunately and sadly :-(


On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'll look at the changes and make some more edits later today if I some time.
>> I've changed 'consensus' to 'agreement'
> While consensus has a well defined meaning under Apache (especially in voting), basically
agreement means the same thing here. There is no requirement for agreement for publishing
a release. (again all it requires is a majority vote of 3 +1 and more +1s than -1s). Perhaps
"some agreement" or "general agreement" is a better term? You may consider that an unnecessary
distinction but I really think that the PMC as a whole misses this rather important point
about releases.
> I have concerns about a release process that seems on face value to be a single vote
only after consensus / agreement is reached and that treats any "blockers" along the way as
vetoes. It comes from good intentions (trying to reducing the workload on the PMC) but may
not be in alignment with Apache release policy.
> Perhaps Bertrand or Rich would care to comment on this?
> Thanks,
> Justin

Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

View raw message